Malignant unrestrained power | Lee Yee
The Hong Kong police issued a statement the night before yesterday quoting the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department’s response to the arrest of the 12 Hongkongers. The short communication was full of loopholes. If these 12 people are still under investigation, how can the authorities be sure that they will be approved by the procuratorate for arrest later? One of the 12 people was the skipper, is he a member of the smuggling organization? If he is indeed part of a smuggling group, why was he escaping to Taiwan? Why was there no mention of the arrest of the skipper? What happened to the speedboat? Did the 12 people buy the boat hence it was confiscated?
It has been more than a month and they still could not spin a better story. The power has become so domineering to the point where they say what they want without regard for whether it is believable or not anymore.
Chinese state media reported that, at the recent Third Central Symposium on Xinjiang Work held in Beijing, Xi Jinping emphasized the need to “uphold efforts to sinicize religion, sinicize Islam and forge the collective consciousness of a common Chinese identity.” Following Xi’s “sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism,” this is another one of his latest sinicization campaigns with requirements explicitly put forward.
Both Tibetan Buddhism and Xinjiang Islam are religions based on beliefs in God or divine inspirations, while in other parts of China, most religious believers just pray to gods and buddhas for blessings. Very few people truly believe in gods, reincarnation, or life after death. If “One China” means China under the dictatorship of the atheist Communist Party, then the “sinicization of religion” denotes a false and bogus religion. A leader who can come up with the idea of sinicization of religion under atheism is enough to show that there is nothing believable about this regime, including the woven tale for the 12 arrested Hongkongers.
In the era of ancient China’s absolute monarchy, although there was no real religious belief, ancient Chinese emperors at least paid respect to ancestors and held ceremonies to worship heaven. Dictatorship began from as early as the Qin dynasty to the Han Dynasty during which Dong Zhongshu proposed the rule to respect the emperor. However, he also proposed to restrict the emperor and respect heaven; the emperor would be called the son of heaven, meaning the heavenly father was watching over. The occurrence of a catastrophic natural disaster would be the wrath of heaven; the emperor would often issue a rescript for penitence, and reflect and review to improve governance.
The atheistic CCP not only does not believe in gods but also disbelieves in heaven. Mao Zedong claimed to be a “monk holding an umbrella,” meaning that he was above the law and above heaven. He also said, “Battling with heaven is endless joy.” Therefore, under the guidance of the idea of “Humans will triumph over the sky,” the Great Leap Forward brought about a situation of “endless suffering” for the Chinese people.
However, the CCP regime before Mao the second at least would not, on the one hand, claim to believe in Marxism-Leninism, and on the other hand, bludgeon itself with such absurd theories as the “sinicization of religion.” Perhaps Mao 2.0 now possesses absolute power such that no one dares to tell the truth, resulting in comments of all illogical nonsense.
Recently, the Chinese education department was so preposterous that it blatantly falsified the Bible. The story of Jesus and the Adulteress from the New Testament was cited in textbooks but the ending of the story was distorted. In the original passage of the Bible, Jesus said to the adulteress, “I, too, do not condemn you; Go and sin no more!” The Chinese textbook, however, presents the story as: “When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, ‘I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead.’” Forcing words to justify the Chinese leaders into the mouth of Jesus.
Of course, anyone who enforces the law in any society will not be a flawless person, but in a normal society, at least the law enforcers know that they are either guilty, or that regardless of religion or even non-religion, they believe that “there is a deity watching over them.” In addition to believing that “a deity is watching,” law enforcers are also restrictive in their power by the separation of powers with mutual checks and balances, as well as the supervision of the Fourth Estate. Nearly 300 years ago, the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said, “Every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Power is naturally expansive and has a tendency to turn malignant. As long as there are insufficient restraint and supervision, any power will give rise to corruption. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.”
The power we face and its extension in Hong Kong may be the most extreme power in human history. It has no restraints nor any checks and balances, and without the constraints of “heaven” from the dark ages of ancient China and the Western Middle Ages. Its “expansion and malignancy” can exceed all human imagination. Therefore, normal people can only completely and absolutely distrust this absolute power.
「separation of powers checks and balances」的推薦目錄:
separation of powers checks and balances 在 潘小濤 Facebook 的精選貼文
//假若香港真的不再實行三權分立,後果不堪設想,以下列舉數例:
一、法院將無法審查禁蒙面法以及緊急法是否違憲,警察亦不會因法庭裁決而暫停執行惡法,市民權利無從保障!特務警察大可以「國家安全」為名,長期拘留未經法庭審判及定罪的疑犯,後果不堪設想。
二、立法會無權審核終審法院法官的提名和委任,純粹任由特首指派聽命於行政機關的人選,屆時所有司法制衡均成為泡影,即使連表面上的公正亦難以達致。
三、政府將大有可能無限膨脹,由所謂的「行政主導」演變成與中共完全無異的「一黨專政」體制,屆時法院及立法會均是政府的橡皮圖章,一切制衡盡喪,以往有效的約束成為「走過場」的程序,背後一切早已由極權決定!//
【再思三權分立 - 監察與制衡】
林門鄭氏以至教育局局長楊潤雄近日分別發表言論,聲稱香港沒有「三權分立」,意圖對香港憲政再作新解讀,推翻過去公認的理解。在今日禮崩樂壞的香港,完全體現「龍門任佢搬」的做法。適逢終審法院前任法官列顯倫(Henry Litton)近日於南華早報撰文,指出法院持續讓公共利益屈從於個人權利,實乃破壞法律及錯誤解讀一國兩制,言論引起爭議。本文希望透過一美國事例,帶出一個健全的民主國家是如何理解三權分立的憲政秩序,並分析香港若真失去三權分立會有何惡果。
雖然美國廣義上被認定是一民主政體國家,但其情報部門例如中央情報局(CIA)和國家安全局(NSA)以「國家安全」為名,繞過立法及司法機關的監察,對疑犯施行酷刑和非法拘留,亦是極具爭議性的課題。杜克大學法學院教授Michael Tigar就此課題,發表 “The National State: The End of Separation of Powers”一文,指出行政機關不斷膨脹是對三權分立憲政制度的最大威脅。
簡而言之,行政機關會以國安為名,不斷試圖避開國會及法院的監察及制衡,令「行政主導」,甚至是「行政獨大」的情況更為嚴重。Professor Tigar認為在此情況下,國會及法院須各施其職,履行其「監察及制衡」(checks and balances)的作用,才可使三權分立制度正常運作。不要忘記,美國政府是經民主選舉產生的,情報部門首長亦需由總統提名。而在專權體制下的香港,「行政獨大」之情況只會帶來更差劣的結果。
過去一年,香港警察以社會穩定為名大肆濫捕、律政司坐視罪案發生而不作為、繞過立法會強行通過的《國安法》更成為市民頭上的利刃,製造白色恐佈!
列顯倫法官的文章指,《港版國安法》第44條授權林鄭市長指定審理國安法案件的法官人選,是司法機關咎由自取、高舉個人權利的結果,又指法院將外國的價值套用至香港是不恰當的做法。列大人如此怪罪香港法院令我想到Professor Tigar的論點:法院或國會沒有履行責任,對行政機關作出有效的監察及制衡,將導致三權分立的終結(the end of separation of powers)。
三權分立之所以存在,是我們不信任、亦不放心將所有權力放在其中一個機關之上。要令三權分立的憲政秩序得以維持,司法及立法機關堅定實踐角色是箇中關鍵。但假若我們的法院及立法機關不斷「自閹」、矮化,終結三權分立的將是這種消極、不作為之態度。
假若香港真的不再實行三權分立,後果不堪設想,以下列舉數例:
一、法院將無法審查禁蒙面法以及緊急法是否違憲,警察亦不會因法庭裁決而暫停執行惡法,市民權利無從保障!特務警察大可以「國家安全」為名,長期拘留未經法庭審判及定罪的疑犯,後果不堪設想。
二、立法會無權審核終審法院法官的提名和委任,純粹任由特首指派聽命於行政機關的人選,屆時所有司法制衡均成為泡影,即使連表面上的公正亦難以達致。
三、政府將大有可能無限膨脹,由所謂的「行政主導」演變成與中共完全無異的「一黨專政」體制,屆時法院及立法會均是政府的橡皮圖章,一切制衡盡喪,以往有效的約束成為「走過場」的程序,背後一切早已由極權決定!
港共政權此番不惜玩弄文字遊戲,並從刪改通識課程入手,明顯是要為未來行政獨大鋪路,移除對其權力的制約,並希望下一代香港人從小接受此洗腦宣傳。各民主同路人務要警醒,認清三權分立的本質及對香港的重要,寸土不讓!
separation of powers checks and balances 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
My recent article😎😎😎
https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…
Opinion | Ulterior Motives behind Opposition Camp's refusal to recognize HKSAR political system
HK Current
2020.09.03 11:39
By Athena Kung
In fact, the political system adopted by the HKSAR is executive-led. Under this structure, the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary complement each other, with built-in checks and balances.
In the year of 1840, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain after the Opium War. In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed on 19th of December, 1984, the Chinese and British Governments had a hand-over ceremony on 1st of July, 1997, which marked the resumption of sovereignty by China over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the HKSAR of the PRC was formally established. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which was adopted in April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, formally came into effect. The Basic Law clearly states and defines the specifications as to how the high degree of autonomy as well as the political, economic, cultural and educational systems of the HKSAR to be run.
To comply with the Basic Law, since 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government has been carrying out the basic policies of "One country, Two systems," "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the HKSAR. Under "One country, Two systems", even though China is a unified country and the mainland practices the socialist system, Hong Kong's previous capitalist system before 1st of July 1997 and way of life has been remaining unchanged for 50 years. To properly implement "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people", the HKSAR has all along been administering by the Hong Kong people on their own, and the central authorities have never sent officials to the HKSAR to fill any local official posts. To fulfill "a high degree of autonomy", apart from foreign and national defense affairs which should be administered by the central authorities, the HKSAR has fully enjoyed the power to decide all other matters within its autonomous jurisdiction. The central authorities has never interfered in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. All along, the HKSAR government has been making the final decisions on all matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law.
Under the political system of the HKSAR, its major organs of power include the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in policy-making and advises the Chief Executive on matters relating to the introduction of bills and subsidiary legislation. Being independent agencies, both the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission are directly accountable to the Chief Executive. In accordance with the conditions procedures as prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs whereas the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive and the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs. The Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other, which is however not the separation of powers as described by the Opposite Camps from time to time.
The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is both the head of the HKSAR and the head of the HKSAR government. His or her dual status enables him or her to have extensive functions and powers. The Chief Executive shall be selected from among residents of the HKSAR by election or through consultations held locally, and be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the HKSAR plays a very superior role in the HKSAR political system.
In short, the Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the Basic Law, signing bills and budgets, promulgating laws, making decisions on government policies and issuing Executive Orders. Article 48 of the Basic Law empowers the Chief Executive a variety of powers and functions:
" Article 48
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) To lead the government of the Region;
(2)To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3)To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
(4)To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
(5)To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
(6)To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
(7)To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
(8)To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
(9)To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
(10) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
(11)To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
(12)To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
(13)To handle petitions and complaints.
Indeed, the judicial independence plays a vital role to ensure that the acts and policies of the executive and the legislature fully comply with the Basic Law whereas all fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all Hong Kong citizens in accordance with the law can be completely safeguarded. However, from the point of view of separation of powers, the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary in the HKSAR should be one of mutual-supervision, checks and balances. It is purely a kind of division of work.
The Opposition Camps has been keeping on refusing to recognize the executive leadership role played by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law. On the other hand, they intentionally and wrongly deny the executive-led political system adopted in the HKSAR so as to weaken the powers, functions and authorities of the Chief Executive. At the same time, they have been trying their best to expand the powers of the Legislative Council. Clearly, the Opposition Camp aims at making a change in the political system of the HKSAR, namely from executive-led to legislative-led in the hope of controlling the whole HKSAR Government once they can obtain more than 35 seats in the Legislative Council Election. Such step is a common strategy adopted in “Colour Revolutions” instigated by the U.S. Government. In reality, the Opposition Camp has been keeping on spreading rumors to provoke the public's hatred towards the Chief Executive so as to crack down the prestige of the executive-led system in the HKSAR and achieve its ultimate goal of Hong Kong Independence.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責任編輯:CK Li
編輯:Whon
separation of powers checks and balances 在 Separation of Powers--An Overview - National Conference of ... 的相關結果
Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from ... ... <看更多>
separation of powers checks and balances 在 Separation of powers - Wikipedia 的相關結果
According to the principle of checks and balances, each of the branch of the state should have the power to limit or check the other ... ... <看更多>
separation of powers checks and balances 在 separation-of-powers-and-checks-and-balances - Legal ... 的相關結果
separation -of-powers-and-checks-and-balances. U.S. Constitution Annotated. The following state regulations pages link to this page. ... <看更多>